Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Senators David Vitter and Rand Paul have introduced a resolution declaring that a person born in the United States to illegal aliens should not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen. The more I look into this issue, the more inclined I am to support the resolution. What say you?
Of course, the usual suspects are greeting this as proof that the GOP is full of neanderthals who haven't read the Constitution. But have the critics read the relevant passage of the 14th Amendment? It goes:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . “
What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The framers of the amendment were pretty clear in congressional debates that they did not intend the "birthright clause" to grant citizenship to the children of parents who owe allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Until 1924, the law held that not even American Indians were not sufficiently "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US to benefit from the birthright clause.
From a standpoint of original meaning, it's a stretch to read the 14th Amendment as granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegals. Once upon a time, even some Democrats realized this. In 1993, Harry Reid (yes, that Harry Reid) introduced a bill very similar to the Vitter/Paul bill (he recanted 13 years later - in 2006 - when he found it expedient to start making nice to Hispanic voters).
Why should we twist the words of the 14th Amendment -- for any reason, but especially when the result is putting greater strain on the backlog of law-abiding aliens patiently waiting for legal immigration? And when virtually no other advanced, industrial nation embraces the concept of citizenship for illegal immigrants (according to the Center for Immigration Studies).
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
The birthright citizenship issue is just one more of the pathologies that plague the US, courtesy the left/progressives. If ever a country suffered a death wish, it is modern America in the hands of these people.
Either we defeat them, or they will kill any vitality that remains of the American dream.
Oct '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
I'm not against it, but i bet it's unpopular among Mexicans.
Jun '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Unpopular, probably, but logical!
Jan '11
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Nearly any approach I would advocate would be considered racist. Sure, try to correct to 14th amendment; but wouldn't it be easier to change immigration law regarding family unification? The legal citizen must be older than the family member(s) allowed to join the anchor citizen.
Otherwise, cut welfare and build the wall. The Chinese built one, I think they used renewable energy too.
May '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
As an American living abroad, I'm with you 100% on this one. No other country on Earth has a tacit policy as cowardly as ours.
Oct '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
The debate should start - and end - with a demand that the opposition define the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
I say "and end" because they cannot define the meaning of that clause AND defend birthright citizenship.
We should not engage in ANY other debate on this issue until and unless they FIRST define the meaning of that clause because absent that, all other arguments and debates are irrelevant.
May '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
I wouldn't argue in favor of the attractiveness of ending citizenship for illegal immigrants by appealing to the fact that "no other advanced, industrial nation" grants citizenship to illegals in this way. After all, one never hears the end of how no other advanced, industrial nation lacks a government-run healthcare sector. This however does not lend credit to government control of the production and distribution of healthcare.
Jul '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
End it. Along with family reunification and the absurd "diversity lottery". And while we're at it, reserve voting rights to naturalized citizens who have paid income taxes for ten years.
Edited on Jan 30, 2011 at 8:19pmMay '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
James C. Ho at the Wall Street Journal begs to differ. So does attorney Margaret Stock.
Nov '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Ann Coulter provides this interesting factoid:
"Take Sweden – one of the left's favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship."
And summarizes with this provocative, yet valid point:
"Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden's generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden's welfare policies haven't bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don't grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil."
May '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Why can't we just "...allow labor to move freely across borders without having to provide the full benefits of citizenship to everyone who enters," as suggested by Will Wilkinson?
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Adam, may I make a special request? Would you read Jen Rubin's post on this issue--you'll find it here--then let us know just where she's making her mistakes?
I find Jen generally convincing on immigration, but you've give me pause. Heck, you might even give her pause.
Jul '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Peter Robinson: Adam, may I make a special request? Would you read Jen Rubin's post on this issue--you'll find it here--then let us know just where she's making her mistakes?
I find Jen generally convincing on immigration, but you've give me pause. Heck, you might even give her pause. · Jan 30 at 8:50pm
Peter, the sources she quotes are all advocates for Hispanic immigration: the Pew Hispanic Center; the Mexican Migration Center; the Migration Policy Institute and, sadly, Cato.
And as much as I admire Jen Rubin, she hardly covers herself with glory by dismissing Paul and Vitter's idea as, "...harebrained...unreasoned and extreme."
Sounds like she was in an axe-grinding mood.
Aug '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Peter Robinson: Adam, may I make a special request? Would you read Jen Rubin's post on this issue--you'll find it here--then let us know just where she's making her mistakes?
I find Jen generally convincing on immigration, but you've give me pause. Heck, you might even give her pause. · Jan 30 at 8:50pm
For one, she seems to think that "constitutional conservatives" can't try to have the Constitution amended through the proper means that the Constitution provides. I've heard Jonah Goldberg spotlight that as a tactic opponents use when they don't like a policy.
I also noticed she sites a Migration Policy Institute study that says the illegal immigration population would increase by 44% by 2050 if the law passed. That's a bit of a false number. It's only a change in legal status that makes that number jump. The law wouldn't make more people come here illegally.
I'm still slightly persuaded by the moral argument that a child born on US soil had no choice and it shouldn't be denied to them. I am very receptive to the argument Adam is making though.
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
I agree with Adam. Current US law effectively delegates immigration and naturalization policy to foreigners, certainly a unique circumstance in the world. Consider that to become a permanent US resident all someone need do is sneak into the country and produce a child--an automatic citizen--and then quash any deportation proceeding on the grounds of separating a dependent US citizen from his parents.
May '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
Steven Potter
I'm still slightly persuaded by the moral argument that a child born on US soil had no choice and it shouldn't be denied to them. I am very receptive to the argument Adam is making though. · Jan 30 at 9:31pm
True - the child had no choice. But does that singular circumstance justify permanent residency for the child's parents?
What about some kind of compromise such as granting the child's parents temporary residency until the child and/or all subsequent children obtain majority status then emigration back to the country of origin where an application for lawful immigration can be made?
Sep '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
This is one of those issues that makes you wonder how any clear-thinking person could possibly disagree.
Oct '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
I have to admit, I've always felt the 14th amendment was the GOP's crowning achievement. But I suppose at some point, we do have to grow up and deal with our immigration problems.
At this point, Mexico is suffering more then we are from our absurd border policy. We need to do something, I suppose.
Jan '11
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
To expand the thread to citizenship generally - Heinlein's often a bit loopy, but I always had a soft spot for his concept of suffrage outlined in Starship Troopers. And that's as someone who has never served in the armed forces.
May '10
Re: Time to Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
I think we have this backwards. I agree that current policy is unfair to silly. Three of my four kids (born in Australia, Mexico and Spain) are not eligible to be President, even though they carry USA passports. A child born to illegals in the USA would be.
Having said this, surely it will be easier and more effective to gain control over our southern border, bringing a halt to the majority of the problem - than it would be to amend the Constitution - and earn the potential alienation of large chunks of folks. I would have thought this to be the logical and more productive area for pressure and reform.